Aquatic Invertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats of Blackburn Fork

1
Aquatic Invertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats
of Blackburn Fork

• Michael Railling
• Wildlife and Fisheries Science
• Tennessee Tech

2
Project summary

• Problem Are the aquatic invertebrates the same
  in pool and riffle habitats.
• Objective Show that the two habitats should be
  comparably different by scoring the different
  taxa.
• Expected Results In the pool more tolerant taxa
  will be found. The Riffle will support taxa that
  are more susceptible to poor water quality.

3
Introduction/Background

• Stream macroinvertebrate assemblage varies at
  both regional and local scales (Heino et al.
  2002). My experiment the samples are taken only
  feet away from each other, however the Taxa
  Richness and Percent EPTs should be different.
• Lower water quality is directly associated to
  diversity (Heino et al. 2002). The water quality
  of pool areas is lower than that of Riffles
  causing less diversity.

4
Objective/Hypothesis Statement

• Hypothesis
• What different proportions of Genera can be
  found in pool and riffle habitats of the
  Blackburn Fork, and can the differences of genera
  be linked to different water quality within
  theses habitatats.
• Objective
• To show that different genera are found in
  different habitats. Using Taxa Richness and
  Percent EPTs

5
Methods

• Using 6 Hester-Dendy samplers Qualitatively, 3 in
  pools and 3 in riffles.
• Scrubbing the bugs off the substrate
• Identifying the invertebrates down to genus.
• Scoring the results using data forms to show the
  Taxa Richness and Percent EPTs (State of
  Tennessee 2002).

6
Materials

• Six Hester-Dendy Samplers with nine three inch
  plates on each.
• One pint Formalin
• One pint Ethyl alcohol
• One D-Frame net
• 12 bricks
• One case of viles
• One large cooler
• 24 freezer bags

7
Expected Results and Benefits

• Expected Results In the pool more tolerant taxa
  will be found. The Riffle will support taxa that
  are more susceptible to poor water quality such
  as EPTs.
• Benefits Showing that invertebrates are habitat
  specific.

8
Project Timeline

• Title 8/20/03-9/03/03
• Objective 9/10/03-9/17/03
• Literature References 9/17/03-present
• Data Form 9/24/03-present
• Experiment 8/9/03-present

9
Literature Cited

• Adams, S.M., W.R. Hill, M.J. Peterson, M. G.
  Ryon, J. G. Smith, and A.J. Stewart. 2002.
  Assessing recovery in a stream ecosystem
  Applying chemical and biological endpoints.
  Ecological Applications 12 1510-1527.
• Battin, T.J., L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, and
  Susan Hendricks. 2003. A mixing model of stream
  solute dynamics and the contribution of a
  hyporheic zone to ecosystem function. Freshwater
  Biology 48 995- 1014.
• Carter, J.L., and V.H. Resh. 2001. After site
  selection and before data analysis Sampling,
  sorting, and labratory procedures used in stream
  benthic macroinvertebrates monitoring programs by
  USA state agencies. Journal of the North American
  Benthological Society 20 658-682.
• Dyer, S.D. and Xinhao Wang. 2002 A comparison of
  stream biological responses to discharge from
  wastewater treatment plants in high and low
  population density areas. Environmental
  Toxicology and Chemistry 21 1065-1075.
• Fairchild, M.P., and Joseph P. Holomuzki. 2002.
  Spatial variability and assemblage structure of
  stream hydrosychid caddisflies. Journal of the
  North American Benthological Society 21 576-590.
• Heino, J., T. Muotka, and R. Paavola. 2003.
  Determinates of macroinvertebrate diversity in
  headwater streams Regional and local influences.
  2003. Journal of Animal Ecology 72 425-434.
• Hoffman, A., and V.W. Resh. Oviposition in three
  species of limnephiloid caddisflies(Trichoptera)
  Hierarchical influences on site selection. 2003.
  Freshwater Biology 481064-1077.
• Hyne, R.V., and W.A. Maher. Invertebrate
  biomarkers Links to toxicosis that predict
  population decline. 2003. Ecotoxicology and
  Environmental Safety 54366-374.
• Kobayashi, S., and T. Kagaya. 2002. Differences
  in litter characteristics and macroinvertebrate
  assemblages between litter patches in pools and
  riffles in headwater stream. Limnology 337-42.
• Malmqvist, B. 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in
  riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology
  47679-694.
• Negishi, J.N., M. Inoue, and M. Nunokawa. 2002.
  Effects of channelisation on stream habitat in
  relation to a spate and flow refugia for
  macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. 2002.
  Freshwater Biology 471515-1529.
• Parsons, M., M.C. Thoms, and R.H. Norris. 2003.
  Scales of macroinvertebrate distribution in
  relation to the hierarchical organization of
  river systems. Journal of the Americam
  Benthological Society 22 105-122.
• State of Tennessee. 2002. Quality System Standard
  Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream
  Surveys. Department of Environment and
  Conservation.
• Wymer, W.A., and S.B. Cook. 2003. Effects of
  Chironomidae (Diptera) taxanomic resolution on
  multivariate analysis of aquatic insect
  communities. Journal of Freshwater Ecology
  18179-186.

10
Budget

• Saleries and Wages
  Year 1 Year 2
• Professional
  150.00 150.00
• Technician
  65.00 65.00
• Secretarial
  90.00 90.00
• Subtotal
  305.00 305.00
• Benefits
  - -
• Travel
  25.00 25.00
• Non- Expendables
  100.00 100.00
• Expendables
• Computer
  700.00 -
• Supplies and Expenses
  278.13 6.94
• Copying and Telephone
  20.00 20.00
• Subtotal
  998.13 26.94
• Indirect Cost
  125.00 125.00
• Direct Cost
  1303.13 331.94